Albasini racist?

[_nm___]

I don't believe in a "true you" and a "less than true you." It's "True you" all the time, 24/7, so what was said was born of racism within the person who spoke. He's a real racist. That he may also harbor more beneficial human qualities simultaneously is irrelevant to this discussion. But anger does indeed bring out the self in ways that many times remain hidden because of social mores regarding the propriety of such things.

it depends: if he was on tramadol it could have been a less than true him. tramadol causes hallucination and confusion states similar to those of morphine.

sorry that was a joke, i know this is a serious thread

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There's no doubt he intended to offend Reza ... those words were clearly chosen to cause some severe offense. Can you think of something that would cause more offense ?

I remain unconvinced that because Albasini wanted to cause severe offense to Reza he thus automatically believes their races to be inherently ranked on different levels, or should be treated differently.

There are many ways to cause offence without recourse to racist vocabulary. You can argue that other things wouldn't have caused the same level of offence, and maybe you would be right.

But there is a line in the drawing of offence that you do not cross. For most people, selecting your vocabulary deliberately to racially abuse somebody is across the line. Yes, you want to insult your subject, but for most people racial epithets are beyond what they consider acceptable. Clearly for Michael Albasini racial abuse is acceptable. I don't consider it is, and I don't consider that the vast majority of rational people would actively select racist vocabulary when trying to insult people, because, hint hint, doing so is racist.

What word would you like us to use for somebody who considers racial abuse to be acceptable, if you are unwilling to accept "racist"?

Not in a private conversation. I agree that if it isn't a private conversation, racist insults are worse than other insults (that would otherwise be equally bad).

So as long as it's a private conversation, it's the same as any other insult since it wasn't intended for wider consumption?

Does the same apply to homophobic abuse? How about sexual abuse? Is that no worse than other abuses when done in private?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Can't say anything to that. I have been in a courtroom only once, that was as a spectator 7 years ago and it was an argument about 1 m² of plot area or something


As mentioned before if you want to hurt someone that number of things narrows down quickly. Especially when you are aware of the historic connotations.
It's an ugly thing to do, and he was way out of line, and he deserves to be called out on it, he deserves that his name will be associated among fans with this incident for quite some time. It will hopefully teach him a lesson if he's angry to hold it for a second and think about what he's going to say. I just don't think he deserves the "Racist cyclist"-stamp.

Then we're not going to agree. Fair enough.

I think he deserves the "racist" racist stamp.

 

[Dedelou]

I thought Reza was born there.

close by.. Reza was born in france where they run a bike race from time to time

 

[kingjr]

Then we're not going to agree. Fair enough.

Yup. Would have been a rarity anyways in this place

 

[cineteq]

 

[phanatic]

lol Rorschach test if there ever was one

 

[SeriousSam]

So as long as it's a private conversation, it's the same as any other insult since it wasn't intended for wider consumption?

Does the same apply to homophobic abuse? How about sexual abuse? Is that no worse than other abuses when done in private?

Have you read some of my previous posts? Not any other insult. Only those that cause equivalent offense.

Yes. If you disagree, can you explain where the additional wrongness comes from?

The part of the debate I'm involved in starts with the hypothetical situation where someone is insulted, in a private conversation, with two types of insults. A non-racist insult and a racist insult. We stipulate that they cause equivalent offense.

My position is that because they cause equivalent offense, they have equivalent ethical status. They are equally bad. Your position (and that of others) seems to be that some types of insults can be worse, such as racist slurs, sexual or homophobic abuse, even if they cause no more offense. The challenge is to explain why they are worse with principles that hold up if applied more generally.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Can we have some hypotheticals on prospective insults that would cause equivalent offence and why they would do so, in order to ascertain?

I mean, racial/sexist/homophobic slurs are not just personal but more wide-reaching and discriminatory. Even if not intended to do so, they send the message "you and people like you are beneath me". I would wager that the vast majority of insults that could cause equal offence would be personal to that person - insults against the person's family, for example.

I find "I dislike you/you are beneath me because you are you" to be a far more defensible position in the field of insults than "I dislike you/you are beneath me because you are [insert race/gender/sexual orientation here]". The former is deeply personal, the latter is dehumanizing. It throws up the implication that by belonging to a group which the subject of the insult usually has no choice in, they are the same as all members of that group, and that this is something deserving of mockery.

All of which is only partially relevant, because Albasini's conversation with Reza wasn't exactly truly private. And regardless of whether he could have said something else that would equally have offended Reza, he didn't say something else that would equally have offended him, he racially abused him. So Albasini acted in a racist way. I don't understand why this is being made into such a 'shades of grey' issue. Either Albasini used racist insults or he didn't, and if he did he's acting in a racist manner, and there's a word for people who do that.

 

[rhubroma]

If a person has a prejudice or discriminates against someone because of their race than they are a racist. If a person does not have a prejudice and does not discriminate against someone because of their race than they are not racist.

It has nothing to do with the feelings of the recipient. Where would you add the feelings of the recipient to my above statement ?

It's a separate issue. Considering the feelings of another person comes mostly under the issue of "not being a ****" and being a good person in life.

It's not an utterly inane point just because you disagree with it.

I have encountered a number of fools on this site, but you are certainly tops.

Let me spell it out for you: if a black man is called a "dirty n!gger" by a white man, then he has been a victim of racism.

That you don't think it's racism is totally irrelevant.

 

[rhubroma]

No, that isn't my point. My point is that your claim is wrong. Let me quote your claim for the third time:


Wrong.

Where am I supposed to have said, or implied, the bolded?



The former, but not because I've pointed out an error of yours.

And this is what you said:

Using a racial term can/will be seen as racist but that does mean that was the intent, do you understand that?

Nope, because you are wrong. And refer to my last post. No need to thank me.

 

[deValtos]

I have encountered a number of fools on this site, but you are certainly tops.

Let me spell it out for you: if a black man is called a "dirty n!gger" by a white man, then he has been a victim of racism.

That you don't think it's racism is totally irrelevant.

Thanks for spelling that out, had nothing to do with my post you quoted and ignored, but thanks.

The point of my previous post was that determining whether someone is a racist is solely on them and their opinions and their actions.

You may think at this stage it's an irrelevant thing to talk about and if you don't want to discuss that then fine, I just don't see why you would "spell out" a point that I haven't made a single comment about, nor attempted to ? The only thing I've been debating about is whether Albasini is racist or not.

Calling someone a "fool" because you don't want to properly respond to them is a bit weak.

 

[deValtos]

There are many ways to cause offence without recourse to racist vocabulary. You can argue that other things wouldn't have caused the same level of offence, and maybe you would be right.

True but it's still probably the most offensive thing that wouldn't take you 5 + minutes to come up with.

But there is a line in the drawing of offence that you do not cross.

Offending someone is already crossing the line (or a line). I can't think of a situation where you need to offend someone, it's always done out of choice. Everyone has personal "lines" if you will at different points for different topics.

For most people, selecting your vocabulary deliberately to racially abuse somebody is across the line. Yes, you want to insult your subject, but for most people racial epithets are beyond what they consider acceptable. Clearly for Michael Albasini racial abuse is acceptable.

If you're going to say Albasini finds racial abuse acceptable then you would also have to concede that pretty much everyone else finds general abuse acceptable. Like I said, you're crossing the line when you offend someone period, I imagine everyone has been rude to someone else at some point in their lives, does that mean we all find abuse of other humans acceptable ?

I don't consider it is, and I don't consider that the vast majority of rational people would actively select racist vocabulary when trying to insult people, because, hint hint, doing so is racist.

I still consider Albasini to be racist only if holds racist beliefs. We know he's offensive.

What word would you like us to use for somebody who considers racial abuse to be acceptable, if you are unwilling to accept "racist"?

Just to clarify I'm not saying either way if he is or is not racist, that's solely on what he thinks, I can't know that. So for now I'd just call him a bad guy, someone I wouldn't want to hang out with, a moron, etc you get the point

Also thanks LS for not calling me a racist and actually trying to talk, I kind of wish I hadn't seen this topic judging by some of the responses ...

 

[rhubroma]

Thanks for spelling that out, had nothing to do with my post you quoted and ignored, but thanks.

The point of my previous post was that determining whether someone is a racist is solely on them and their opinions and their actions.

You may think at this stage it's an irrelevant thing to talk about and if you don't want to discuss that then fine, I just don't see why you would "spell out" a point that I haven't made a single comment about, nor attempted to ? The only thing I've been debating about is whether Albasini is racist or not.

Calling someone a "fool" because you don't want to properly respond to them is a bit weak.

No, what's really weak, is that you continue to maintain that one can use racial epithets, but so long as it wasn't one's "intention" to be racist, or that one "doesn't feel" racist nonetheless, then one should be exonerated of the charge. On the one hand it conveniently removes all responsibility from one's own choice of words and, on the other, gives no consideration to the target (when it is what really counts - otherwise it wouldn't be called racism).

Now this can only mean that you are intellectually dishonest, or a fool. I've come to the conclusion that it's the latter.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

True but it's still probably the most offensive thing that wouldn't take you 5 + minutes to come up with.

Maybe if he'd taken some time to think up something, he wouldn't have settled on what he chose. By choosing that, he opens himself up to the charge of racism.

Offending someone is already crossing the line (or a line). I can't think of a situation where you need to offend someone, it's always done out of choice. Everyone has personal "lines" if you will at different points for different topics.

Of course, offending somebody is a choice. And offending somebody using defamatory discriminatory epithets is another choice.

If Albasini was angry with Reza and decided he wanted to offend him by some term of general abuse, nobody would bat an eyelid. That happens. But he made the choice to racially abuse him. Why would you do that, if you're not a racist? Don't say "because he was really upset and wanted to offend Reza". Most people have got pretty upset in their time without recoursing to racial epithets at the subjects of their anger. If Albasini was upset with Reza, he could have insulted him on a personal level. That may have caused equal offence, and certainly wouldn't have been cool, but wouldn't open him up to the charge of racism. So either Albasini was so upset with Kevin Reza personally that he decided levelling racial abuse at him was the only way to put his point across (in which case he's a horrible person willing to use racism to put down minorities... which is, when you come to think of it... what's the word? Oh yes, racist)... or he was upset with Kevin Reza because of his race, which would explain why he used the racial epithets, and would make him, that's right, racist.

If you're going to say Albasini finds racial abuse acceptable then you would also have to concede that pretty much everyone else finds general abuse acceptable. Like I said, you're crossing the line when you offend someone period, I imagine everyone has been rude to someone else at some point in their lives, does that mean we all find abuse of other humans acceptable ?

There is a difference between "general abuse" in the sense of calling somebody a general, non-specific insult, and more specific discriminatory abuse, such as racist, sexist, homophobic abuse, where generally abuse is tied into something that the subject of the abuse has no control over. You have control over whether or not you act like an *******, you do not have control over your skin colour, gender* or sexuality. Attacking somebody for something they have no control over simply because it links them to another set of people they may have but one thing in common with is belittling them, suggesting that they are deserving of abuse simply because of their skin colour/gender/sexuality, and that therefore by proxy that skin colour/gender/sexuality is inferior as you are deemed worthy of abuse just for being that skin colour/gender/sexuality.

And therefore, by wilfully choosing to use racial epithets, you are consciously belittling the subjects of your abuse, in which case it is racial abuse. That's before we get onto the use of "dirty" as a modifier, which only goes to increase the effect of the use of the insult to undermine the subject. Albasini used a racial epithet, and chose an adjective modifier to increase the insulting, denigrating effect of it.

I still consider Albasini to be racist only if holds racist beliefs. We know he's offensive.

And how would you ascertain whether he holds racist beliefs? Considering it ok to call a black man a "dirty n!gger" is, in my mind, pretty clear. There is no context where that is ok and is not racist. Even in situations where it's "allowed" or done for comic effect with consent, the humour in those situations is from playing around with people's expectations based on the racist connotations. Even if it was just chosen out of many potential terms of abuse, for maximum effect, the intent was to use racial abuse as a medium to insult. Which is racist.

Just to clarify I'm not saying either way if he is or is not racist, that's solely on what he thinks, I can't know that. So for now I'd just call him a bad guy, someone I wouldn't want to hang out with, a moron, etc you get the point

Also thanks LS for not calling me a racist and actually trying to talk, I kind of wish I hadn't seen this topic judging by some of the responses ...

That's because trying to sit on the fence about whether somebody who calls a black man in public a "dirty n!gger" is a pretty difficult position to take. Being on the fence about it is about as apologetic as anybody is going to get, because nobody is going to come out and say "this is OK" except, you know, racists. Trying to say "the content is racist but it may not have been intended out of racism" is a bit self-contradictory to many of us, especially those of us who cannot shake the opinion that, as racist vocabulary has in many places been made (deservedly) taboo, it simply wouldn't occur to somebody to use those words without there being explicitly racist intent.

*this is of course debatable, but introducing transgenderism into the discussion adds several further forms of abuse, and is also comparatively uncommon in terms of number of transgender people compared to the number who are subjected to racist, sexist or homophobic bigotry. That is not to make light of the abuse suffered by the transgendered, since they are also among the most persecuted groups.

 

[Afrank]

Please everyone stay away from insulting other posters. Ones personal opinion about another poster is not on topic and insults are against the rules.

 

[rhubroma]

Maybe if he'd taken some time to think up something, he wouldn't have settled on what he chose. By choosing that, he opens himself up to the charge of racism.

Upon the vulgar racist gaffe of the aspiring stage winner Albasini certainly weighs the odd and recent idea that speaking frankly, also in public occasions, is a virtue in and of itself. Yet centuries of diplomacy, good manners and even salvific hypocrisy demonstrate otherwise. Often its absolutely vital to not say what one thinks deep down, or else soften that thought with a robust packaging of euphemisms. Only very, very few, that is among the greats, can get away with the luxury of "being themselves" in all occasions and without reserve. The spirited response of Diogenes to Alexander the Great ("step aside, you're blocking my sun") is moving when attributed to a great philosopher of antiquity, though it would be an insolence worth two cents if spoken to the emperor by an ordinary Joe of no talent who is inevitably destined to oblivion.

"Being yourself" is the monster that afflicts our age. Yet "being yourself" is a luxury that not everyone can permit themselves. It should be surveyed with greater care and often supressed, because it doesn't always merit to be flaunted. Now it's up to us, that is more or less all of us, to re-educate ourselves. In each of us lurks an Albasini. But unlike Abasini, we are required to be aware of this.

 

[deValtos]

No, what's really weak, is that you continue to maintain that one can use racial epithets, but so long as it wasn't one's "intention" to be racist, or that one "doesn't feel" racist nonetheless, then one should be exonerated of the charge.

It's incredible that you think this when absolutely everyone who posted here has condemned what he said, me included. It was offensive, it was rude, he should be punished.

"Exonerated of the charge" ... "maintan that one can use racial epithets" ...

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts if you continue to ignore everything I have to say and instead respond to things you want me to have said, or think I have said but haven't.

 

[hrotha]

"Exonerated of the charge" of being a racist.
"Maintain that one can use racial epithets" without being a racist.

I thought rhubroma's post was pretty clear.

 

[rhubroma]

"Exonerated of the charge" of being a racist.
"Maintain that one can use racial epithets" without being a racist.

I thought rhubroma's post was pretty clear.

Thanks hothra and I normally don't latch on to anyone else for my own defense, but I'm just at my wits end by now.

 

[deValtos]

"Exonerated of the charge" of being a racist.

I've never said anything of the sort ?

"Maintain that one can use racial epithets" without being a racist.

Well that is essentially what we're debating. It's the case you can use racial epithets in some circumstances (e.g friendly talk between members of the same race) but does it make it you automatically racist in other circumstaces ? We disagree here.

I thought rhubroma's post was pretty clear.

It was probably clearer to you as you have the same veiwpoint. I didn't add the extra "of being a racist" in my mind. My bad.

 

[deValtos]

Maybe if he'd taken some time to think up something, he wouldn't have settled on what he chose. By choosing that, he opens himself up to the charge of racism.

Yes he does.

There is a difference between "general abuse" in the sense of calling somebody a general, non-specific insult, and more specific discriminatory abuse, such as racist, sexist, homophobic abuse, where generally abuse is tied into something that the subject of the abuse has no control over. You have control over whether or not you act like an *******, you do not have control over your skin colour, gender* or sexuality. Attacking somebody for something they have no control over simply because it links them to another set of people they may have but one thing in common with is belittling them, suggesting that they are deserving of abuse simply because of their skin colour/gender/sexuality, and that therefore by proxy that skin colour/gender/sexuality is inferior as you are deemed worthy of abuse just for being that skin colour/gender/sexuality.

Sure there's a difference between "general abuse" and "racial abuse" in what type of abuse it is. I think your argument is essentially racial abuse is morally worse for you because it's something a person can not change ?

I think most people would agree with you on that point though I don't. Reason being:

I don't think there is a difference in how that abuse is recieved, people are driven to suicide for comments that you would call only "general abuse", e.g look at school bullying, I think you'd be surprised how much you can **** up someones state of mind with a seemingly mundane insult out of the "general abuse" section. People get all kinds of disorders, severe depression etc from things another person might easily shrug off ...

Do you think there is a moral difference between a black guy being the victim of racist remarks and a school girl being bullied with comments like "fat" and "ugly". ? How would you guys feel if Reza would've been called "fat" and "ugly" instead of what Albasini said, any different ? Does it alter your opinion if you found out one or the other (black person or school girl) had been put into depression by said comments ?

If you're being offensive, it's all bad. I think because of political correctness we've been taught one is morally worse for you than the other. If your intent is to harm the other person with your words I don't necessarily consider a racist comment as morally worse than a general abuse comment.

I'll reply to some other bits later, long post.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But does that mean that somebody who intentionally uses racist language to abuse somebody can't be called a racist? If not, why not? What is it about Michael Albasini calling Kevin Reza a "dirty n!gger" that makes you not sure whether we should accept the hypothesis that he is racist?

Because he intended to cause offence? Does the end justify the means, and therefore because he wanted to offend Reza, it was ok that he did so by racist means and that doesn't make him racist, just somebody using a means to an end?

Because if you're willing to racially abuse somebody to make a point, either it's because you're a racist, or you're masquerading as a racist. And what reason could you ever give for "pretending" to be a racist?

You state:

It's the case you can use racial epithets in some circumstances (e.g friendly talk between members of the same race) but does it make it you automatically racist in other circumstaces ?

Given the history and development of the word, when it is used (especially with a pejorative modifier, such as "dirty") by a white person against a black person, it is racist. And using it as an identifier in a situation where the black person is in an overwhelming minority is abusive.

Even if there are situations where the use of the word is not considered racist (it is still a racist word, but is in the process of being 'reclaimed' - a situation I don't necessarily agree with), that has no relevance when it is being used in a racist manner in a situation where it has clear racist pejorative content, by a white athlete in the overwhelming majority in the péloton against a black athlete in the overwhelming minority in the péloton.

 

[deValtos]

But does that mean that somebody who intentionally uses racist language to abuse somebody can't be called a racist? If not, why not?

I think we've probably reached the point where we're going to starting going in circles.

A racist to me is someone who considers various races to be either superior or inferior to each other and/or treats people from different races differently based on that.

Like I said before I don't think you can actually tell whether Albasini genuinely believes that, just because he called Reza what he did.

If he did believe that, I'd call him a racist.

 

[Netserk]

rac·ist
ˈrāsist/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

...

One can be a racist without calling someone a dirty n!gger, and one can call someone a dirty n!gger without being a racist. Simple.

I know whether or not I am a racist (I'm not, as I don't believe any race is superior to any other race), and I can (but won't) call someone a dirty n!gger without changing belief (and therefore still not being a racist).

People may have very good reasons to think I'm a racist (if I uttered such words), but that (what other people think) doesn't change that I'm not a racist.